The White Nationalist Manifesto
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018
I first met Greg Johnson in 2001 as part of a group of fifteen conference attendees having a late dinner at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, NC. Dr. Johnson was among those seated at my end of the table. To drop two familiar names, Sam Francis and Jared Taylor were among those seated at the other end. From his introduction I got the impression that Dr. Johnson was an academic doing research on our movement, accompanied by two grad students and a London journalist who was writing a book on political fringe groups. As I recall, he asked a lot of questions and did a lot of listening. Since that introduction he has risen to a position of prominence and I would name him among the top ten living figures in our movement in terms of output, activity, influence and recognition, although I admit my rating system is biased in favor of intellectual output, which in Dr. Johnson’s case is considerable.
For those familiar with Dr. Johnson’s work there is much in this book that they have seen before, even some topics that have been covered by many different authors, such as Robert Putnam’s findings on the connection between diversity and alienation and John Jay’s celebration of America’s original lack of diversity in the Federalist No. 2. But this book is intended both as an introductory primer and comprehensive summation for potential converts and those new to the movement as well as a much more thorough and fully developed discussion of its topics for movement veterans.
What is new is the focus on the two ultimate topics of our movement. The first topic is the ultimate problem: the fact that our race is undergoing a process of destruction or genocide by multiracialism. The second topic is the ultimate and only sufficient solution to the problem: a grand separation of the races either by the removal of non-Whites (the only solution for Europe) or partition of the country’s territory into independent nations for the different racial groups, now commonly called “ethnostates,” a term derived from Wilmot Robertson’s 1992 book of that title which has gained increasing currency over the last decade.
This reviewer has two upcoming articles in The Occidental Quarterly addressing these same two ultimate topics,1 as well as an earlier article dating to when Dr. Johnson was the editor,2 but given the central importance of these topics to our race and movement they should receive far more attention than has hitherto been the case. As central and important as they are, they have been largely neglected, unacknowledged or even avoided by movement authors. Only in the last decade or so, as the term ‘ethnostate’ has gained in currency, has it become common for authors to acknowledge these two topics as the ultimate problem and solution, but they have not commonly been as fully developed or addressed in nearly as much depth as Dr. Johnson does in this book.
A manifesto is a declaration of policy, beliefs and aims, motives and intentions, making them clear and obvious, or manifest, with nothing hidden or held back. In the introduction Dr. Johnson describes the book as “an essay in metapolitics….to offer a clear, concise and persuasive synthesis of arguments that I have been developing for more than a decade” (p. 7), with metapolitics defined as “creating the conditions necessary for political success” (p. 6). He dismisses diversity as just a euphemism for replacing Whites with non-Whites as a lead-in to White Nationalism, which ”simply means the right of all White peoples to sovereign homelands” and its goal “to replace multiracial, multicultural societies with racially and culturally homogeneous homelands, which we call ‘ethnostates’ (p. 4)… . To create or restore White ethnostates, different groups sharing the same territories must separate. This requires moving borders and people…. I argue that the process of racial separation…need not be swift, violent, or inhumane” (p. 5). This reviewer agrees that it need not be any of those things, and I certainly don’t want it to be violent or inhumane, but what is wrong with “swift” that it should be grouped with such negative paths to be avoided? More on this later.
With the first chapter, titled “White Extinction,” Dr. Johnson starts with a bang, jumping right on the topic of the ultimate problem:
White Nationalists believe that the current social and political system has put our race on the road to biological extinction. If present trends are not reversed, Whites will disappear as a distinct race.
To many Whites, this sounds like an absurd and alarmist claim, given that there are anywhere from 700 million to one billion of us on the planet today. Part of that skepticism is simply psychological denial in the face of an unpleasant prospect. Non-Whites seldom show skepticism about White extinction. Indeed, our enemies take our eventual disappearance for granted and openly gloat about our decline.
I wish to argue, however, that White extinction is not an alarmist fantasy, but an alarming fact, the inevitable conclusion of sober, informed analysis. (p. 9)
Dr. Johnson is quite correct in his observation that many Whites are clueless about our ultimate racial problem. Even Whites who are in the top ranks of the judiciary, science, mathematics, business, etc.—all with verifiably high IQs—commonly seem totally unaware of what is happening to their race. To the extent this is not conformist and careerist pretense, it is proof that IQ is not everything, with many seeming to be racially blind and lacking in racial sense and sensibility. They do not have the ability to see, understand, value and care about race. Thus, one of our most important “metapolitical” tasks is to make the ongoing destruction of our race clear and visible to our race, so they can see it and it becomes real to them. This book is important primarily because it is effective in this task.
Dr. Johnson points out that “White extinction is not natural but man-made. Thus, if our race is to survive, the first thing we must do is not defeat nature, but other men.” He discusses the causes of extinction: habitat loss, invasive species (or other races) that compete in the same ecological niche, and hybridization, “meaning reproduction, but not reproduction of one’s distinct biological type. Hybridization is only possible if a sufficiently similar species [or a different race of the same species] invades one’s ecological niche.” When these conditions are caused by men it is “cold genocide…the slow destruction of a group simply by establishing conditions that make its long-term survival impossible.”
To make the ongoing destruction of the White race more visible and real to his readers Dr. Johnson explains that replacement of all-White societies with multiracial societies is a form of habitat loss which deprives Whites of safe breeding spaces, depressing their birthrates. “The search for safe White breeding spaces is one of the driving forces behind suburbanization and exurbanization following the collapse of White supremacy, the emancipation of indigenous non-White populations, and the flooding of White lands by non-White immigrants.” Multiracialization in turn enables hybridization, which is
a cause of White extinction, since it fails to reproduce the racial type. Miscegenation is inevitable if different human races are allowed to associate freely in the same environment. Thus in the past, when racial integrity was valued, there were social and legal barriers to miscegenation in multiracial societies. Those barriers have been swept away. Today…people are not merely “free” to miscegenate. Miscegenation is actively encouraged by the media and educational system. (pp. 13-14)
After effectively establishing the reality of the ultimate White racial problem, Dr. Johnson moves to the topic of the ultimate solution: “we need to create or restore homogeneously White homelands, either by moving borders or moving peoples, i.e., through racial partition and secession schemes or the removal of non-White populations” (p. 24). “Under the present system, Whites will become extinct, and…the only real solution is the creation of White ethnostates” (p. 42). “A race facing genocide cannot afford to indulge in sentimentality, moderation, and half-measures” (p. 94). “The rightward route embraces the deepest meaning and impetus of White Nationalism. It rejects diversity entirely in favor of the idea of the ethnostate. It is willing to move peoples and borders to create racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all European peoples who aspire to self-determination. This is the ultimate aim of White Nationalism as I conceive it” (p. 136). In several passages spread through the book he describes his approach to the realization of the ethnostate:
We don’t have to be in a hurry. The next time a non-White family has to move for economic reasons, we will just make sure that they move outside our homelands … . White genocide is a process unfolding over generations. Its architects knew very well that its ultimate end is the extinction of the White race … . They conceived a slower, safer process of genocide. They knew that if anti-White demographic trends were set in motion and sustained over time—i.e., lower birthrates, collapsing families, miscegenation, non-White immigration, non-White penetration of White living spaces, etc.—the long-term result would be White extinction, and very few Whites would become aware of it, much less fight back, until resistance was pretty much futile anyway … . We need to set in motion a well-planned, orderly, and non-violent process of repatriation.
There is, moreover, no hurry. Our enemies planned to eliminate us over generations. We can take a few decades to set things right. … If some people will not worry about White demographic displacement because it will happen after their deaths, why should they worry about our plan for White demographic restoration, since it too will unfold slowly over decades and only reach fulfillment well after they are dead? Even though the restoration of White homelands may take a couple of generations, there will be immediate psychological dividends for Whites once we know our race has a future again … . Once we restore hope for the future, our people will start living as if the ethnostate is already here. Those who fight for a better world live in it today. (pp. 40–47)
America could become a normatively White society again tomorrow. That is simply a matter of will. And once that decision is in place, we can…move from multiculturalism toward the White ethnostate. This process might take fifty years. But we could take our time to get it right, because Whites would begin to reap enormous psychological benefits today, simply by knowing that our people have a future again. (p. 96)
I am willing to entertain civic nationalist approximations to the ethnostate as temporary, expedient compromises with political reality. For instance, I believe that White Nationalists should seriously promote a new immigration/emigration policy that aims to return to the ethnic status quo of 1965, which was in many ways the peak of American civilization. The goal would simply be to erase the catastrophic error of opening our borders to the Third World. This transformation could take place gradually, with 2065 as the target date for completion … . But there is no guarantee that such a racially segregated society would not eventually grow complacent, then delusional and profligate, repeating all the mistakes that are destroying us today. Thus White Nationalists will have to keep moving the goalposts toward the complete realization of the ethnostate. (p. 136)
After effectively establishing the reality of White genocide, and rejecting sentimentality, moderation and half-measures in the effort to defeat it and secure White existence by the creation of an ethnostate, Dr. Johnson’s plan for doing so strikes this reviewer as anticlimactic. While its spatial sense is unknown and thus uncertain, it is certainly anticlimactic in the temporal sense, with a gradual process that might take fifty years, a couple of generations, or until well after those opposed to it are dead. Unfortunately, most of those who are in favor of the ethnostate, who presumably worked and fought against seemingly impossible odds to win it—and want to enjoy their victory by living in it—will also be dead. Fifty years is the life expectancy of a 29-year-old man. In his final word on the subject Dr. Johnson moves the goalposts back even further, taking until 2065 just to return to the racial status quo of the supposedly halcyon days of 1965, when Wilmot Robertson had already begun writing The Dispossessed Majority to address what he, like most White Americans at the time, rightly saw as a major racial problem, and the more aware (including my teenage self) recognized as a potential catastrophe. If our racial victory came in 2060, this might be a worthwhile intermediate goal, but in 2025, or even 2050, I would not consider it such.3 The timeframe of this plan doesn’t inspire me with excitement or enthusiasm, or confidence. As Dr. Johnson notes (p. 45), the realization of any plan would require that White Nationalists attain and retain political control until the program is complete. Given the uncertainties of political power, the longer a program takes to complete the less confidence there can be in its eventual successful realization and the greater the risk of failure.
Since the population transfers required for the creation of separate ethnostates through partition could be feasibly completed in less than five years (see below), dragging out the process to take more than ten times as long — with the resulting loss of the momentum that carried us to victory and would still be needed to overcome the delay and obstruction tactics of the anti-White resistance — would be a tremendous concession to the opponents of White preservation and the ethnostate. Much could happen in this half-century reprieve (or period of grace) to prevent the program’s realization, and our opponents could cause or exploit all of them. White Nationalism could lose control, or be changed from within, like the South African National Party after the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966, losing its original purpose and goals. Or a long list of other things could go wrong, all proving the folly of unnecessary delay as the opened door is again closed and the once golden opportunity is lost. We can’t count on baby steps or a slow walk process to save our race. We’ll need “The Big Mo.”
Dr. Johnson is firm in his conviction that “the price of not pursuing White homelands is extinction, and compared to that prospect, what we lose by going to extremes is negligible. What critics call going to extremes is simply what White Nationalists call erring on the side of caution” (p. 94). And in this book he makes a convincing argument in support of his conviction, both that the White race is being destroyed by multiracialism and that the creation of White homelands is necessary to bring that destruction to a halt and prevent it in the future. His success in doing so makes this an important and useful book for our movement, helping to fill the great gap in our awareness of our situation, of what is happening to us and what we need to do in response.
But it also shows us that however difficult it is to address the destruction and genocide of our race, it is far more difficult to address the grand racial separation into ethnostates that is the only sufficient solution. As hard as it is to make our racial genocide visible and real to our audience and from that to establish the necessity of separate racial homelands (both of which Dr. Johnson succeeds in doing), it is much harder to go into the actual details of the creation of the ethnostate in a way which makes it believable and real. On this subject — and especially the fact that any credible plan would have to involve mandatory mass population transfers backed by force— the very normal reaction is to balk and sidestep the issue rather than engage it. Proposing a fifty-year process — even if motivated by the questionable belief that it would lessen or avoid the need for forceful measures — is quite a sidestep. Better to be vague than to remove the ethnostate from our lifetimes and take away our hope of living in what Dr. Johnson calls “a nice White country.”
A manifesto is not the place for reticence, but reticence is understandable. Our bourgeois (e.g., the Constitution) and Christian values impose a high bar on the justified use of force. Does the continued existence of our race, its salvation from destruction and genocide, its sovereignty, freedom, independence and control of its own existence, meet that threshold that would justify the use of well-regulated force necessary to attain these ends? These ends and the grievances they address are immeasurably greater than those invoked in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, there has never been, and can never be, any greater.
In addition to the moral and emotional concerns that discourage many from seriously considering the ethnostate is the belief that the daunting physical and logistical magnitude of the task makes it impractical or even impossible, and therefore utopian. But is that true? At least with regard to transportation we have numbers we can crunch, and many will find the results surprising.
Let’s calculate the transportation logistics of population transfers involving the relocation of 150 million people (or 65 million households at an average of 2.3 members per household) and their personal property or goods (furniture, etc.) an average distance of 1,000 miles. In the U.S. 1.4 trillion miles are travelled per year by passenger vehicles (or 3.3 trillion passenger miles, with an average of 2.36 occupants per vehicle). If 150 million people relocated in vehicles, with an average of 2.3 occupants (the average household size) per vehicle and an average travel distance of 1,000 miles, that would be 65 billion vehicle miles (and 150 billion passenger miles), or 4.64% of the normal annual total. There are 7.3 traffic fatalities per billion passenger miles giving a total of 1,095 expected transportation fatalities (150 x 7.3) for the relocations.
Regarding personal property, up to 200 billion miles are traveled each year by semi-trailer trucks which can carry the personal property of three average households. Relocating the goods of 65 million households (150 million people) by semi-trailers (averaging three households per trailer) an average of 1,000 miles would total 21.67 billion travel miles, or 10.83% of the normal annual semi-trailer total. Many people would be unable or unwilling to relocate themselves and would probably be moved primarily by bus. As there are only 0.11 fatalities per billion passenger miles for buses, whatever percentage were moved by bus would essentially reduce the number of traffic fatalities by the same percentage. If the actual average distance for the transfers was 1,250 miles rather than the baseline 1,000 miles the figures would be increased by 25%, with the passenger miles being 5.8% and the semi-trailer miles 13.54% of the normal annual totals. These figures indicate that the transportation logistics of relocating 150 million people and their personal property in a time frame as short as a year would be quite feasible.
Matching people with new homes and jobs would perhaps be more complicated, although many transferees would have the ability and the preference to make those arrangements themselves. Some areas would probably require additional infrastructure and housing, which could be mostly prefabricated to reduce cost and time.
However much we might hope and wish for an immaculate partition, the process probably won’t be as simple and easy as the above calculations might make it seem, but at least they show that we need not be so intimidated by its scale that we shrink from the prospect.
Turning to Europe, Dr. Johnson pays due attention to the growing racial problem that has developed in the postwar era. He rightly values and seeks to preserve the different racial types and nations of Europe, favoring “sensible policies to preserve the ethnic and subracial diversity of White peoples. Just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader White racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that it preserves rather than undermines distinct White ethnic groups” (pp. 64–65). That “broader White solidarity” means that Europeans in Europe and the European-settled nations abroad need to transcend their differences to make common cause as Whites against their common anti-White enemy:
We…have to talk about Whiteness…because the present political system insists that it is possible for people of all races to be American or English or Swedish. For a very long time, it went without saying that only White people could be part of any European nation. But multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to divorce European national identities from Whiteness. Thus to save our nations—and through them our race as a whole—we have to talk explicitly about Whiteness. We have to assert that being White is a necessary condition of belonging to any European national group … [and] that non-Whites can be members of White nations only by virtue of legal fictions. Not every White man is a Swede, but every Swede is a White man. (p.61)
A broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity [is] necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing. Creating such solidarity is imperative. Thus we must emphasize all the things that Europeans have in common, and beyond all the differences of language, culture, and religion, the deepest root of European identity and solidarity is racial. All Europeans share common ancestors. We are one extended family.
Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see White men. And we simply see non-Whites. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as White men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as White people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us. (p. 62)
Dr. Johnson provides his own summation of the book’s central message in the “…four political absolutes that White Nationalists cannot compromise on:”
Whiteness is a necessary condition of being part of any European nation. Therefore, no non-racial form of…nationalism is sufficient to defend European peoples.
The White race is threatened with…biological extinction, compared to which all other political issues are trivial distractions. White extinction, moreover, is the predictable result of political policies. So we are facing not just extinction but genocide. Only by recognizing the…nature of the threat can we define a real solution and create the necessary moral seriousness and urgency to implement it.
The only tenable solution to the threat of White extinction is White Nationalism: the creation of homogeneously White homelands for all White peoples, which will require moving borders and people.
Jews are a distinct people and belong in their own homeland … . The organized Jewish community is also one of the principal architects of the policies we wish to change, and one of the main impediments to correcting them. (p. 111)
Our movement is blessed with prominent figures, such as Dr. Johnson, who take seriously their position as the adults in the room, counseling civil behavior and practicing what they preach. Dr. Johnson has made a particular effort to provide sound guidance, direction and advice to keep the movement healthy, united, growing and out of trouble, and he provides many examples of that in this book. Consider his approach to harmful sectarian tendencies:
There are people who insist on combining White Nationalism with a list of Right-wing add-ons…[and] insist that these peripheral issues are essential to White preservationism … . This approach is guaranteed to create a smaller, weaker, dumber, poorer, and less effective … movement, when we need to go in precisely the opposite direction.
Such behavior is often dismissed as “purity spiraling.” But purity is not a problem. The problem is failing to distinguish between what is essential and what is peripheral to White identity politics. We should keep our core principles pure. The mistake is to demand purity on marginal matters as well. (p. 120)
We should focus on what unites us, the great cause we have in common. Then, as Dr. Johnson writes, “We will be united by our common goal of racial salvation” (p. 121).
Looking at the course of our movement, and the larger metapolitical and political trends in general, Dr. Johnson projects the developments of the last few years into the future and makes some predictions that end on a high note:
Implicit White Nationalism is the animating principle of the growing populist- nationalist movements across the White world … . As populist-nationalists rack up victories, we will inevitably move from implicit to explicit racial advocacy, and we will switch from defense to offense. We will not just halt White dispossession, we will reverse it. (p. 135)
Amen to that.
1.”Visions of the Ethnostate” in the upcoming Fall, 2018 issue and “Confronting our Genocide” in the upcoming Winter, 2019 issue.
- “Separate or Die” in the Winter , 2009 issue.
- The return to the ethnic status quo of 1965 might be a sufficient goal for Australia and the Scandinavian countries, while the status quo of 1947 might be a sufficient goal for Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands.